Yes, it is. This was illustrated with the conversations about breeds of dogs is extinct as we know them today would all pretty much be considered a different species with only archeological evidence availible.
The scientific process for looking at the past is to look at the evidence, determin how it fits together then test that determination. While the theory hasn't been falsified, it doesn't mean it won't be or that two entirely different theories could be just as valid with the given evidence. That's just how science works and if you don't understand that very basic principle, you shouldn't be talking about it at all.
Currently, the process is "here is the hypothesis that comprises this theory, does it fit and where". It just happens to be that we are talking about biological evolution here. If it does fit, it doesn't create a problem for the theory, if it doesn't, you examine why it doesn't and conclude hypothesis to why it doesn't fit or how it can fit. If there is a reasonable and probable explanation supported by other facts (evidence is facts), then it fits. If not, then either evolution gets changes, the time line for the dig site, or something to see where the problem is. You cannot say that isn't interpreted to fit into a prescribed story.
This is irrelevant. The way your arms and legs bend isn't the only piece of available evidence.
That was an example. Do you know what an example is? The relevance is entirely aplicable to the context of the sentence. Did you notice that I was talking about DNA similarities in the context of a common ancestor and later stated that it doesn't mean there isn't one, it just means you need confidence in the evidence and theories.
You are retarded, lying, and spewing out straw men. Goodbye.
Ahh, so here lays your ultimate goal, your one of the evangelical atheist who troll everyone who doesn't step in sync with your holy books. You see, you are actually validating my point that you quoted, "They won't even allow for Evolution to be broken into distinct groups for challenges as if it harms their holy word or something."
So lets examine that sentence, who is they, well a third grade English skills would show people that it is the "some people, even here on slashdot," who "will claim that evolution as it is currently stated is a proven fact that is indisputable (even to science)". And now you reduced the conversation to name calling and trolling because either A: you weren't smart enough to figure that out, or B: you are one of those people I was talking about. If I had to guess, I would figure a combination of both leaning more to the later but still with a lot of ignorance helping you out.
Perhaps one day, you won't be afraid if something in science changes or if someone looks at something differently. Science revolves around checking the validity of what we know and it will be no better then a religion if you keep it up.
There was a New Zealand airbus a320 that crashed off the coast of France in test maneuvers where the flight computer miscalculated the airspeed and attempted to correct causing an unrecoverable stall at low altitude.
We also have the quantas flight that dropped almost 500 feet in seconds because a ground wire was improperly placed and arced causing spikes across all the systems and invalid sensor input. That didn't result in a crash, largely because everything reset itself but several passengers suffered broken bones and other injuries from that. And these are just within the last 8 months to a year.
As for the problem being pilot verses autopilot, your mostly right because when the systems fail, or fail to address the situation properly, the pilot takes over. But it seems that this Air France case, the flight computers were at fault and the same multiple sensor failures were too. I guess the question is going to be is if this is pilot error because they couldn't control the plane in enough time, or classified as an autopilot error?.
You know, you are about the 20th person to bring that up but a simple google search would have shown that the computer controls act differently during take off and landings and the plane didn't reach enough altitude or speed to change flight characteristics controls.
You are aware that if all you see is white sheep, it doesn't mean there are never any black sheep right. You're equating A with B just because they are both in the alphabet when they can be vary different.
Yea, I am aware of that. However, the computer systems do the controls differently when the engines aren't running and at slow speeds for take off and landing. That situation wasn't a normal in flight situation.
Had they reached normal flight, the outcome could have been very different depending on if the computer accounted for the failed engines or not.
Airbus has showed of the ability for the computers to override the pilot and count that as a plus.
there may be ways to override the regular autopilot but from my understanding, you can't override the computer's feedback systems. This means that if a sensor that caused the autopilot to malfunction is causing the computer systems to malfunction, only in one instance can you correct for it if the correction means the flight computers think your out of flight specs.
What about all the human-caused accidents? You conveniently leave those out of your anti-computer diatribe.
I didn't leave them out of anything, I assumes you were already aware of them and didn't go through the redundancy of mentioning them. the big difference between human and computer error is that the computer can crash due to human error that was never present durring the incident because of programing issues, incorrect sensor data, and so on. If a human is present, and that human has a good situational awareness, he can correct for those issues even if it is just entering a heading override code into the computer.
However, you seem to be missing my entire premise. I'm all for computer controlled flight, I just think hands on is better at determining when the computer is failing. The Air New Zealand A320 Airbus I mentioned could have been completely avoided by humans overriding the computer when it was realized that it was responding incorectly.
The autopilot was never active because of the engine failures on take off. Two different systems there.
You also don't seem to understand the problem and the concept here. It's not normal control of the craft that is at stake, it's when the computer thinks the pilot isn't responding or responding incorrectly that is at issue. The same problems causing the pilots to take control can also cause the computer to override the pilots responses to the issues. That is the key difference between the two systems, the computer can override the pilot in one and the pilot can override the computer in the other. And example of this is the Air New Zealand A320 Airbus that crashed in the Mediterranean off Southern France on November 28
That's what I mean by knowing when to trust the computers and when not to. There will be times when the computer is more accurate and capable and then there are times when the pilot would be.
Just knowing about the situational awareness is enough to reinforce the idea that they need to regain it. Looking at their instruments, looking for visual clues outside the plane, and so on. Plus having visual alarms signaling the turning off/on of the autopilot, actualy usefull and meaningful feedback or visual alarms pointed to where the problem is and things should be good.
It's all about maintaining awareness and assessing the situation. In the flight 593 scenario, the autopilot was disconnected, there was a warning light but the pilots failed to notice it. The pilots, according to the Wikipedia article, took no action until after the plane banked some 90 degrees and the autopilot put it into a vertical climb nearly causing a stall. Anyways, the autopilot wouldn't have fixed the problem because it was only partially in control of the plane. But had the pilots actually looked at their instruments and made themselves aware of what was going on, they would have seen the warning light for the autopilot disengagement even though there wasn't an audible warning like they were used to.
In flight 604, the claim of the pilots fault also carried the claim of insufficiently trained which doesn't quite meet the well trained definition. However, again, if the copilot informed the pilot of an error and verified it with the instruments, the situational awareness "could" have been regained and accident avoided. That was however, not on autopilot in the first place.
I'm not suggesting replacing the autopilot nor am I suggesting that the pilot makes all the decisions. But when the pilot can determine something to be incorrect, then he needs the ability to correct it.
Airbus advertised the fact that the computer will override pilots if the computer thinks the pilot is doing an unsafe maneuver.
As for the buffalo crash in which the pilot incorrectly reacted, please read what I said first.
I said, and you quoted me as the same, "because an experienced pilot would also be aware of when the autopilot if taking the wrong procedure or maneuvers and could correct for faulty sensors or whatever causing it"
Obviously in this case, the pilot wasn't experienced enough to know that the autopilot was making the correct maneuvers, and he countered with the wrong ones. News reports also claimed that the pilot was unskilled and bearly passed his examinations, had problems in flight simulators and I don't think he would even qualify as an experienced pilot capably of detecting when the wrong thing is happening. In fact, his last act was to fail to detect when the right thing was happening. The computers don't make shit up on the fly, they follow the same principles the pilot should have known.
And on the air bus, the same pilot could have lowered the landing gear and over ridden the control computers anyways. The same guy reacting incorrectly could have crashed either plane.
Well, there has been at least two accidents concerning computer error in the last 8 months, an almost accident which was adverted by the actions of the pilot but left crew and passengers with broken bones and other injuries. And yes, they have all been airbus planes. Air New Zealand A320 Airbus that crashed in the Mediterranean off Southern France on November 28, this air france flight, and the quantas airbus 330 which found a sudden loss of altitude.
However, computer verses human error is not a realistic measurement. How many human error crashes were from pilots attempting to recover from computer error? how many accidents happen on take off or landings when computers aren't generally used(I know some have the capability but not all)? These questions present an artificial outlook on the raw numbers and either could actually be contributing to the other.
Getting the information to the pilot is just an aspect of knowing when to trust a computer or not. I don't mean to make it sound overly simple. You point is well understood.
The issue is a little more complex then your seeing it though. First, the plane that landed in the river was on take off and under manual control. Second, the type of override we are talking about isn't flipping switched and turning off the autopilot, it's taking the controls and maneuvering against or overriding the autopilot. there is a difference in both the amount of time needed and instinctual reaction when you notice something isn't right.
However, if computers had control, then many other flights which have crashed killing all on board would have been avoided.
Would should be could of. There is no guarantee that the autopilot would have made a better decision in all of those situations. Hind sight is 20/20 and looking back when we know the situation, it doesn't mean the pilot or the computer knew it as accurately and therefore the same incorrect actions could have been taken. Granted, a lot of pilot error probably could be avoided by advanced autopilots, we just can't say for sure that all of the would have been.
As for the article summery in not allowing control, it's a matter of "time" and effectiveness within the time plus ability. The Airbus system will actually override the pilots control with the computer on or off. Lowering the landing gear seem to disable it but that would also create some serious drag and cause a loss of air speed. It's idea for landing but not for countering computer glitches at 35000 feet. Here is an article/blog on it from back in January concerning a November 2008 airbus crash.
An interesting thing about the airbus320 is that it doesn't use a center column nor does it use a feedback system. There is a side stick mounted with two buttons on it, on is the pilot override which the computer can still override and the other is a push to talk for the radio. Now imagine this scenario, turbulence causes a sensor failure and the computers react incorrectly, The copilot initially adjusts by depressing the override button but the flight control computer doesn't allow his adjustment. The Pilot does the same- neither side stick is connected to each other or capable of getting feedback, both pilots are now attempting to override the computers and none of them can release the override to press the push to talk button to radio a distress call. Now with no feedback, neither pilot is aware of the other efforts and something happens to lose cabin pressure- end of what we know and can imagine.
Now, don't get me wrong, a Boeing systems and pilot control doesn't mean all is well here. Speculation is that the plane was going through some rough weather and may have been flying too slow because of computer corrections and faulty speed indecators. Here is what I speculate might have happened, the plane was flying slow, the computers were giving the wrong air speeds so it was on the edge of a stall for it's speed, a down draft or windshere caused a drop in altitude which caused the computer to increase thrust and climb, the pilots attempted to override it but another caught and caused part of the air structure to fail resulting on more bad feedback, perhaps a loss of cabin pressure before the breakup and ultimately the crash.
Let me start it out for you then, I believe in what the author claimed was the american way where the autopilot can be overcome by the pilot. Why, because an experienced pilot would also be aware of when the autopilot if taking the wrong procedure or maneuvers and could correct for faulty sensors or whatever causing it.
Now I think it's important to mention experience pilot. The experienced pilot is going to know the proper reactions anyways and will observe the auto pilot taking them. There should be a warning to alert the pilot to any course corrections or anything the autopilot has to do outside of flying straight and level as the flight plan calls for. This alert would allow the pilot to watch the situation and if the computer is doing the wrong thing, correct for it, and go from there.
So far people are saying the auto pilot is more accurate at speed of reaction and so on where the pilot is better at ingenuity. If the pilot is experienced, he will use the computer to his advantage and you really have the best of both worlds, the reliability of computers and all the flight data from 2000 other flights working for you as well as a pilot who can tell when something is obviously not going right and correct for errors and glitched.
I don't think it is a matter of either or, but one or both. With the Airbus systems, as far as I can tell, it's the computer all the way if it's on. Remember that Australia flight that ended up with passengers having broken bones from autopilot reactions to turbulence?
That's pretty much what Boeing has done. The computers can fly the planes all day long. When something isn't right, the pilot can override the system simply by flying the plane like normal.
Now with the terrain following radar, this isn't a situation a pilot would be wanting to override the computer on. well, unless the plane nose dives and the computer proves/indicates it is unreliable. Then you have a choice, let the computer crash you or let the pilot attempt to not crash you. Only with Boeing is that possible, with airbus, regardless of the situation, the computer takes precedence.
A well trained pilot would know when to trust the computers and when not to. They would also know how to maneuver and react in situations. It's like the pilot that landed his plane in the river after losing an engine to birds. I don't think a computer would have taken that option and not only would it have been likely that all the passengers would have been killed, but bystanders as the planes computer attempted to correct and eventually goes down in a populated street.
I think you are accidentally conflating two very different aspects of IP.
Copyright and patents are separate. I'm sure you know this. What is at stake is the use of something released as copyright that may be in conflict with a patent under certain circumstances. Now some people are attempting to claim a GPL violation by a third party (google) for it's use without securing royalty free patent licenses for downstream users as the new GPL states. The FFmpeg copyright holders are the only people who can enforce such a copyright license violation. This is all separate from the patent aspect and patent licenses rights which is only a component to the current "discussion" as far as the GPL license violation is concerned.
In short, over the use of FFmpeg, if google gets a license to use the patented material from the patent owner but doesn't provide the protections in the new GPL, the only people who can make a case of it are the FFmpeg copyright holder. I can't, you can't, Microsoft can't, only the copyright holders can make a case from the infringement of the copyright license.
Well what on earth do you expect them to do? Relinquish the opportunity to spend money? Haha, fat chance. They've got to press on in the name of bipartisanship.:)
I wish that was what everyone expected them to do. However, the manipulation and posturing with this scares me quite a bit.
No, what I am saying is that the regulation was already there but not enforced and loopholes in the regulation was created to allow practices that were specifically denied by laws and regulations on the books.
It's not a matter of Government regulation being good or bad, it's a matter of improper regulation, improper enforcement of regulation, and the lack of either all tied together being bad. We don't have a free market in the banking sector, we have a quasi-free market and actions by the government or the inaction by the government strongly effects it. It was a combination of actions in certain areas and inaction in others that allowed the blowup. This is why so many people blame elements of the CRA, Fannie and Freddie, the ponzi schemes, credit default swaps and so on. Not one of those caused the problem, a combination of them plus the lack of enforcement of existing regulation did. The private citizens involved outside of the schemes, was operating within the rules being enforced at the time.
Well, for one, efficiency gains and life support would be a main benefit. Manned missions can't really carry nuclear fuels to power electronic devices, they can't burn fossil fuels and so on, so the result is going to at minimum be more efficient technology that pollutes less and less.
I would say that is a great plus seeing how the world is a frightened little schoolgirl over global warming. Gains in these areas when shared with US firms and universities could mean the US is leading the pack at efficiency and selling the tech or products using the tech to the rest of the world. In the Apollo missions, we stayed in space a relative short time. Now we are looking at permanent semi-permanent bases as goals which means that the research has to be done with stuff in effect and working by the time it happens.
As far as the military presence, he's pulling out of Iraq -- not as fast as I'd like by any means, but about as fast as is responsible I must admit
Obama is following the SOFA agreement Bush put into place. The only difference is in the naming of the remaining forces. The SOFA agreement is the agreement giving the US authority to be on Iraq soil abd was negotiated by Bush before the Obama became president. It appears that it follows McCain's plan pretty close too.
War spending shouldn't be in conflict with other spending. That's why it is typically done off budget. Putting it on budget only causes crap like this to happen where good spending get cut under the cover of paying for it. Sure, we are spending more money then we should be. But not spending money in Iraq or anywhere else doesn't not mean that money would then be spend somewhere else nor now that it is on the budget, does it mean it will stop being spent. When they put the war spending on budget, it was done to raise the budget ceiling which is used to keep congress's spending somewhat under control. Now when the war is done and the spending isn't needed, congress can simply spend the money somewhere else.
The invisible hand that allowed the financial mess in the first place. Except this hand wasn't invisible, it was Uncle Sam's hand who allowed the credit swaps and actually encouraged it, it was the government who allowed bank mergers creating full service banks which was not technically possible until they relaxed the rules, and it was the government that drew up a pyrimid scheme with Fanny and Freddie in which they sought to artificially increase real estate prices as a way repay bond holders.
You cannot rest the blame on the mess your talking about purely on market forces, the government shares just as much if not more blame through their relaxing and refusal to enforce regulation. And no, you can't blame it on one party either, the democrats have a much larger majority then the republicans ever had and it took both parties to make it happen.
That AC comment wasn't by me. I think you know me well enough that I would just say it in regular posts if I wanted to say it.
However, I am sort of inclined to agree with him.
I have pointed to where your sources say the things they do, yet you are attempting to take the collection and bring them to your preconceived conclusion. The problem with this isn't what your doing as a practice in general, That's how science works, you interpret the evidence to the best possible explanation. But what is wrong is that you are dead set on claiming nothing could ever be different and are now misinterpreting the evidence to say more then it actually does. We have discussed this on three different threads, one of which you pointed to a talk origins article and that is the one I Specifically pointed it out on.
Now, it is highly likely that ring species given enough time, could speciate. But all the reasons stopping them from interbreeding is either Mechanical, preferential, of geographically blocked. And to that point, all of those barriers to interbreeding can be manipulated out within the same breeds and the incapability disappears. In your Chihuahua example, the breed classification says 9 pounds but people have found purebred Chihuahuas to not only exceed that, they have lost the miniature status too. Of course they are no longer considered Chihuahuas even though their linage is pure Chihuahua.
Most of what you are claiming is semantics anyways. If a Chihuahua that is capable of overcoming the mechanical limitations and capable of breeding with a great dane is no longer considered a Chihuahua because it exceeds the breed specification even though it's blood line is pure Chihuahua, then your point is only made at the exclusion of evidence. The Deer Chihuahua which is not an AKC recognized breed but is pure chihuahua is evidence of this in which is is completely capable of interbreeding with a great dane. The deer Chihuahua is the actual breed that the miniature dogs were created from. They chose a runt to runt breeding practice to encourage the smaller dog size of the same breed. The Chihuahua can get up to 40lbs in size which is much larger then the typical runt to runt bred Chihuahuas.
Now the same things go for all the other ring species, they can be manipulated within the breed beyond any of the limitations to breeding. You can't show one single example where this isn't possible. the limits are not biological.
I need to show sources, What's wrong with yours? They say what I say, they even quote studies and everything. Take your talk origins article-- I already pointed where it said as I do.
Damn dude, just give up, they aren't lies and you kicking and screaming doesn't make them so. Look at your own links objectively and you will see exactly what I see. If you can't look at them objectively, then sit down and shut up about it.
There is too, the animals in question are not prevented by biological restrictions to interbreeding, they are being prevented by geographical, mechanical, or preferential restrictions. In a lab, all of the animals can be fertilized and the embryos implanted into any of the animals and they live until something prevents that from happening. In your great dane verses Chiuaua it's a mechanical restriction in the gulls from wikipedia article, it's a migratory restriction.
You claiming that they can't interbreed is nonsense and claiming it is proof of speciation is nothing more then opinion. All of the diverse populations can be selectively bread back over whatever external hurdle prevents the interbreeding and this can all happen within the end of the ring.
You can claim it is something more, but it is just a claim, and opinion about the evidence.
You're forgetting a few things. Both GPL v2 and v3 talk about granting the recipient rights to redistribute the license. If the author was the patent-holder or a licensee, then to grant people that license without granting patent rights would render those clauses meaningless.
No, it would just mean that anyone redistributing it would be at the same peril as Google if enforcement ever happened. A patent doesn't preclude the terms of a preGPL3.0 license as long as the distributes take the same or more steps to protect themselves.
In short, If I distribute it under the GPL2 or LGPL2 versions, then anything I don't to protect myself will have to be done by you to protect yourself. If I didn't do anything, then you are at the same peril I am. Version 3 attempted to fix that by claiming a reciprocal license to any patent must be necessary as a component of use.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, it is. This was illustrated with the conversations about breeds of dogs is extinct as we know them today would all pretty much be considered a different species with only archeological evidence availible.
The scientific process for looking at the past is to look at the evidence, determin how it fits together then test that determination. While the theory hasn't been falsified, it doesn't mean it won't be or that two entirely different theories could be just as valid with the given evidence. That's just how science works and if you don't understand that very basic principle, you shouldn't be talking about it at all.
Currently, the process is "here is the hypothesis that comprises this theory, does it fit and where". It just happens to be that we are talking about biological evolution here. If it does fit, it doesn't create a problem for the theory, if it doesn't, you examine why it doesn't and conclude hypothesis to why it doesn't fit or how it can fit. If there is a reasonable and probable explanation supported by other facts (evidence is facts), then it fits. If not, then either evolution gets changes, the time line for the dig site, or something to see where the problem is. You cannot say that isn't interpreted to fit into a prescribed story.
That was an example. Do you know what an example is? The relevance is entirely aplicable to the context of the sentence. Did you notice that I was talking about DNA similarities in the context of a common ancestor and later stated that it doesn't mean there isn't one, it just means you need confidence in the evidence and theories.
Ahh, so here lays your ultimate goal, your one of the evangelical atheist who troll everyone who doesn't step in sync with your holy books. You see, you are actually validating my point that you quoted, "They won't even allow for Evolution to be broken into distinct groups for challenges as if it harms their holy word or something."
So lets examine that sentence, who is they, well a third grade English skills would show people that it is the "some people, even here on slashdot," who "will claim that evolution as it is currently stated is a proven fact that is indisputable (even to science)". And now you reduced the conversation to name calling and trolling because either A: you weren't smart enough to figure that out, or B: you are one of those people I was talking about. If I had to guess, I would figure a combination of both leaning more to the later but still with a lot of ignorance helping you out.
Perhaps one day, you won't be afraid if something in science changes or if someone looks at something differently. Science revolves around checking the validity of what we know and it will be no better then a religion if you keep it up.
There was a New Zealand airbus a320 that crashed off the coast of France in test maneuvers where the flight computer miscalculated the airspeed and attempted to correct causing an unrecoverable stall at low altitude.
We also have the quantas flight that dropped almost 500 feet in seconds because a ground wire was improperly placed and arced causing spikes across all the systems and invalid sensor input. That didn't result in a crash, largely because everything reset itself but several passengers suffered broken bones and other injuries from that. And these are just within the last 8 months to a year.
As for the problem being pilot verses autopilot, your mostly right because when the systems fail, or fail to address the situation properly, the pilot takes over. But it seems that this Air France case, the flight computers were at fault and the same multiple sensor failures were too. I guess the question is going to be is if this is pilot error because they couldn't control the plane in enough time, or classified as an autopilot error?.
You know, you are about the 20th person to bring that up but a simple google search would have shown that the computer controls act differently during take off and landings and the plane didn't reach enough altitude or speed to change flight characteristics controls.
You are aware that if all you see is white sheep, it doesn't mean there are never any black sheep right. You're equating A with B just because they are both in the alphabet when they can be vary different.
Yea, I am aware of that. However, the computer systems do the controls differently when the engines aren't running and at slow speeds for take off and landing. That situation wasn't a normal in flight situation.
Had they reached normal flight, the outcome could have been very different depending on if the computer accounted for the failed engines or not.
Airbus has showed of the ability for the computers to override the pilot and count that as a plus.
there may be ways to override the regular autopilot but from my understanding, you can't override the computer's feedback systems. This means that if a sensor that caused the autopilot to malfunction is causing the computer systems to malfunction, only in one instance can you correct for it if the correction means the flight computers think your out of flight specs.
Perhaps you should take a dose of your own medicine.
There are several sources for the information I presented.
A simple cursory search would have turned up enough information for you to have seen that.
What about all the human-caused accidents? You conveniently leave those out of your anti-computer diatribe.
I didn't leave them out of anything, I assumes you were already aware of them and didn't go through the redundancy of mentioning them. the big difference between human and computer error is that the computer can crash due to human error that was never present durring the incident because of programing issues, incorrect sensor data, and so on. If a human is present, and that human has a good situational awareness, he can correct for those issues even if it is just entering a heading override code into the computer.
However, you seem to be missing my entire premise. I'm all for computer controlled flight, I just think hands on is better at determining when the computer is failing. The Air New Zealand A320 Airbus I mentioned could have been completely avoided by humans overriding the computer when it was realized that it was responding incorectly.
The autopilot was never active because of the engine failures on take off. Two different systems there.
You also don't seem to understand the problem and the concept here. It's not normal control of the craft that is at stake, it's when the computer thinks the pilot isn't responding or responding incorrectly that is at issue. The same problems causing the pilots to take control can also cause the computer to override the pilots responses to the issues. That is the key difference between the two systems, the computer can override the pilot in one and the pilot can override the computer in the other. And example of this is the Air New Zealand A320 Airbus that crashed in the Mediterranean off Southern France on November 28
That's what I mean by knowing when to trust the computers and when not to. There will be times when the computer is more accurate and capable and then there are times when the pilot would be.
Just knowing about the situational awareness is enough to reinforce the idea that they need to regain it. Looking at their instruments, looking for visual clues outside the plane, and so on. Plus having visual alarms signaling the turning off/on of the autopilot, actualy usefull and meaningful feedback or visual alarms pointed to where the problem is and things should be good.
It's all about maintaining awareness and assessing the situation. In the flight 593 scenario, the autopilot was disconnected, there was a warning light but the pilots failed to notice it. The pilots, according to the Wikipedia article, took no action until after the plane banked some 90 degrees and the autopilot put it into a vertical climb nearly causing a stall. Anyways, the autopilot wouldn't have fixed the problem because it was only partially in control of the plane. But had the pilots actually looked at their instruments and made themselves aware of what was going on, they would have seen the warning light for the autopilot disengagement even though there wasn't an audible warning like they were used to.
In flight 604, the claim of the pilots fault also carried the claim of insufficiently trained which doesn't quite meet the well trained definition. However, again, if the copilot informed the pilot of an error and verified it with the instruments, the situational awareness "could" have been regained and accident avoided. That was however, not on autopilot in the first place.
I'm not suggesting replacing the autopilot nor am I suggesting that the pilot makes all the decisions. But when the pilot can determine something to be incorrect, then he needs the ability to correct it.
Airbus advertised the fact that the computer will override pilots if the computer thinks the pilot is doing an unsafe maneuver.
As for the buffalo crash in which the pilot incorrectly reacted, please read what I said first.
I said, and you quoted me as the same, "because an experienced pilot would also be aware of when the autopilot if taking the wrong procedure or maneuvers and could correct for faulty sensors or whatever causing it"
Obviously in this case, the pilot wasn't experienced enough to know that the autopilot was making the correct maneuvers, and he countered with the wrong ones. News reports also claimed that the pilot was unskilled and bearly passed his examinations, had problems in flight simulators and I don't think he would even qualify as an experienced pilot capably of detecting when the wrong thing is happening. In fact, his last act was to fail to detect when the right thing was happening. The computers don't make shit up on the fly, they follow the same principles the pilot should have known.
And on the air bus, the same pilot could have lowered the landing gear and over ridden the control computers anyways. The same guy reacting incorrectly could have crashed either plane.
Well, there has been at least two accidents concerning computer error in the last 8 months, an almost accident which was adverted by the actions of the pilot but left crew and passengers with broken bones and other injuries. And yes, they have all been airbus planes. Air New Zealand A320 Airbus that crashed in the Mediterranean off Southern France on November 28, this air france flight, and the quantas airbus 330 which found a sudden loss of altitude.
However, computer verses human error is not a realistic measurement. How many human error crashes were from pilots attempting to recover from computer error? how many accidents happen on take off or landings when computers aren't generally used(I know some have the capability but not all)? These questions present an artificial outlook on the raw numbers and either could actually be contributing to the other.
Getting the information to the pilot is just an aspect of knowing when to trust a computer or not. I don't mean to make it sound overly simple. You point is well understood.
The issue is a little more complex then your seeing it though. First, the plane that landed in the river was on take off and under manual control. Second, the type of override we are talking about isn't flipping switched and turning off the autopilot, it's taking the controls and maneuvering against or overriding the autopilot. there is a difference in both the amount of time needed and instinctual reaction when you notice something isn't right.
Would should be could of. There is no guarantee that the autopilot would have made a better decision in all of those situations. Hind sight is 20/20 and looking back when we know the situation, it doesn't mean the pilot or the computer knew it as accurately and therefore the same incorrect actions could have been taken. Granted, a lot of pilot error probably could be avoided by advanced autopilots, we just can't say for sure that all of the would have been.
As for the article summery in not allowing control, it's a matter of "time" and effectiveness within the time plus ability. The Airbus system will actually override the pilots control with the computer on or off. Lowering the landing gear seem to disable it but that would also create some serious drag and cause a loss of air speed. It's idea for landing but not for countering computer glitches at 35000 feet. Here is an article/blog on it from back in January concerning a November 2008 airbus crash.
An interesting thing about the airbus320 is that it doesn't use a center column nor does it use a feedback system. There is a side stick mounted with two buttons on it, on is the pilot override which the computer can still override and the other is a push to talk for the radio. Now imagine this scenario, turbulence causes a sensor failure and the computers react incorrectly, The copilot initially adjusts by depressing the override button but the flight control computer doesn't allow his adjustment. The Pilot does the same- neither side stick is connected to each other or capable of getting feedback, both pilots are now attempting to override the computers and none of them can release the override to press the push to talk button to radio a distress call. Now with no feedback, neither pilot is aware of the other efforts and something happens to lose cabin pressure- end of what we know and can imagine.
Now, don't get me wrong, a Boeing systems and pilot control doesn't mean all is well here. Speculation is that the plane was going through some rough weather and may have been flying too slow because of computer corrections and faulty speed indecators. Here is what I speculate might have happened, the plane was flying slow, the computers were giving the wrong air speeds so it was on the edge of a stall for it's speed, a down draft or windshere caused a drop in altitude which caused the computer to increase thrust and climb, the pilots attempted to override it but another caught and caused part of the air structure to fail resulting on more bad feedback, perhaps a loss of cabin pressure before the breakup and ultimately the crash.
Let me start it out for you then, I believe in what the author claimed was the american way where the autopilot can be overcome by the pilot. Why, because an experienced pilot would also be aware of when the autopilot if taking the wrong procedure or maneuvers and could correct for faulty sensors or whatever causing it.
Now I think it's important to mention experience pilot. The experienced pilot is going to know the proper reactions anyways and will observe the auto pilot taking them. There should be a warning to alert the pilot to any course corrections or anything the autopilot has to do outside of flying straight and level as the flight plan calls for. This alert would allow the pilot to watch the situation and if the computer is doing the wrong thing, correct for it, and go from there.
So far people are saying the auto pilot is more accurate at speed of reaction and so on where the pilot is better at ingenuity. If the pilot is experienced, he will use the computer to his advantage and you really have the best of both worlds, the reliability of computers and all the flight data from 2000 other flights working for you as well as a pilot who can tell when something is obviously not going right and correct for errors and glitched.
I don't think it is a matter of either or, but one or both. With the Airbus systems, as far as I can tell, it's the computer all the way if it's on. Remember that Australia flight that ended up with passengers having broken bones from autopilot reactions to turbulence?
That's pretty much what Boeing has done. The computers can fly the planes all day long. When something isn't right, the pilot can override the system simply by flying the plane like normal.
Now with the terrain following radar, this isn't a situation a pilot would be wanting to override the computer on. well, unless the plane nose dives and the computer proves/indicates it is unreliable. Then you have a choice, let the computer crash you or let the pilot attempt to not crash you. Only with Boeing is that possible, with airbus, regardless of the situation, the computer takes precedence.
A well trained pilot would know when to trust the computers and when not to. They would also know how to maneuver and react in situations. It's like the pilot that landed his plane in the river after losing an engine to birds. I don't think a computer would have taken that option and not only would it have been likely that all the passengers would have been killed, but bystanders as the planes computer attempted to correct and eventually goes down in a populated street.
I think you are accidentally conflating two very different aspects of IP.
Copyright and patents are separate. I'm sure you know this. What is at stake is the use of something released as copyright that may be in conflict with a patent under certain circumstances. Now some people are attempting to claim a GPL violation by a third party (google) for it's use without securing royalty free patent licenses for downstream users as the new GPL states. The FFmpeg copyright holders are the only people who can enforce such a copyright license violation. This is all separate from the patent aspect and patent licenses rights which is only a component to the current "discussion" as far as the GPL license violation is concerned.
In short, over the use of FFmpeg, if google gets a license to use the patented material from the patent owner but doesn't provide the protections in the new GPL, the only people who can make a case of it are the FFmpeg copyright holder. I can't, you can't, Microsoft can't, only the copyright holders can make a case from the infringement of the copyright license.
I wish that was what everyone expected them to do. However, the manipulation and posturing with this scares me quite a bit.
No, what I am saying is that the regulation was already there but not enforced and loopholes in the regulation was created to allow practices that were specifically denied by laws and regulations on the books.
It's not a matter of Government regulation being good or bad, it's a matter of improper regulation, improper enforcement of regulation, and the lack of either all tied together being bad. We don't have a free market in the banking sector, we have a quasi-free market and actions by the government or the inaction by the government strongly effects it. It was a combination of actions in certain areas and inaction in others that allowed the blowup. This is why so many people blame elements of the CRA, Fannie and Freddie, the ponzi schemes, credit default swaps and so on. Not one of those caused the problem, a combination of them plus the lack of enforcement of existing regulation did. The private citizens involved outside of the schemes, was operating within the rules being enforced at the time.
Well, for one, efficiency gains and life support would be a main benefit. Manned missions can't really carry nuclear fuels to power electronic devices, they can't burn fossil fuels and so on, so the result is going to at minimum be more efficient technology that pollutes less and less.
I would say that is a great plus seeing how the world is a frightened little schoolgirl over global warming. Gains in these areas when shared with US firms and universities could mean the US is leading the pack at efficiency and selling the tech or products using the tech to the rest of the world. In the Apollo missions, we stayed in space a relative short time. Now we are looking at permanent semi-permanent bases as goals which means that the research has to be done with stuff in effect and working by the time it happens.
Obama is following the SOFA agreement Bush put into place. The only difference is in the naming of the remaining forces. The SOFA agreement is the agreement giving the US authority to be on Iraq soil abd was negotiated by Bush before the Obama became president. It appears that it follows McCain's plan pretty close too.
War spending shouldn't be in conflict with other spending. That's why it is typically done off budget. Putting it on budget only causes crap like this to happen where good spending get cut under the cover of paying for it. Sure, we are spending more money then we should be. But not spending money in Iraq or anywhere else doesn't not mean that money would then be spend somewhere else nor now that it is on the budget, does it mean it will stop being spent. When they put the war spending on budget, it was done to raise the budget ceiling which is used to keep congress's spending somewhat under control. Now when the war is done and the spending isn't needed, congress can simply spend the money somewhere else.
The invisible hand that allowed the financial mess in the first place. Except this hand wasn't invisible, it was Uncle Sam's hand who allowed the credit swaps and actually encouraged it, it was the government who allowed bank mergers creating full service banks which was not technically possible until they relaxed the rules, and it was the government that drew up a pyrimid scheme with Fanny and Freddie in which they sought to artificially increase real estate prices as a way repay bond holders.
You cannot rest the blame on the mess your talking about purely on market forces, the government shares just as much if not more blame through their relaxing and refusal to enforce regulation. And no, you can't blame it on one party either, the democrats have a much larger majority then the republicans ever had and it took both parties to make it happen.
That AC comment wasn't by me. I think you know me well enough that I would just say it in regular posts if I wanted to say it.
However, I am sort of inclined to agree with him.
I have pointed to where your sources say the things they do, yet you are attempting to take the collection and bring them to your preconceived conclusion. The problem with this isn't what your doing as a practice in general, That's how science works, you interpret the evidence to the best possible explanation. But what is wrong is that you are dead set on claiming nothing could ever be different and are now misinterpreting the evidence to say more then it actually does. We have discussed this on three different threads, one of which you pointed to a talk origins article and that is the one I Specifically pointed it out on.
Now, it is highly likely that ring species given enough time, could speciate. But all the reasons stopping them from interbreeding is either Mechanical, preferential, of geographically blocked. And to that point, all of those barriers to interbreeding can be manipulated out within the same breeds and the incapability disappears. In your Chihuahua example, the breed classification says 9 pounds but people have found purebred Chihuahuas to not only exceed that, they have lost the miniature status too. Of course they are no longer considered Chihuahuas even though their linage is pure Chihuahua.
Most of what you are claiming is semantics anyways. If a Chihuahua that is capable of overcoming the mechanical limitations and capable of breeding with a great dane is no longer considered a Chihuahua because it exceeds the breed specification even though it's blood line is pure Chihuahua, then your point is only made at the exclusion of evidence. The Deer Chihuahua which is not an AKC recognized breed but is pure chihuahua is evidence of this in which is is completely capable of interbreeding with a great dane. The deer Chihuahua is the actual breed that the miniature dogs were created from. They chose a runt to runt breeding practice to encourage the smaller dog size of the same breed. The Chihuahua can get up to 40lbs in size which is much larger then the typical runt to runt bred Chihuahuas.
Now the same things go for all the other ring species, they can be manipulated within the breed beyond any of the limitations to breeding. You can't show one single example where this isn't possible. the limits are not biological.
I need to show sources, What's wrong with yours? They say what I say, they even quote studies and everything. Take your talk origins article-- I already pointed where it said as I do.
Damn dude, just give up, they aren't lies and you kicking and screaming doesn't make them so. Look at your own links objectively and you will see exactly what I see. If you can't look at them objectively, then sit down and shut up about it.
There is too, the animals in question are not prevented by biological restrictions to interbreeding, they are being prevented by geographical, mechanical, or preferential restrictions. In a lab, all of the animals can be fertilized and the embryos implanted into any of the animals and they live until something prevents that from happening. In your great dane verses Chiuaua it's a mechanical restriction in the gulls from wikipedia article, it's a migratory restriction.
You claiming that they can't interbreed is nonsense and claiming it is proof of speciation is nothing more then opinion. All of the diverse populations can be selectively bread back over whatever external hurdle prevents the interbreeding and this can all happen within the end of the ring.
You can claim it is something more, but it is just a claim, and opinion about the evidence.
No, it would just mean that anyone redistributing it would be at the same peril as Google if enforcement ever happened. A patent doesn't preclude the terms of a preGPL3.0 license as long as the distributes take the same or more steps to protect themselves.
In short, If I distribute it under the GPL2 or LGPL2 versions, then anything I don't to protect myself will have to be done by you to protect yourself. If I didn't do anything, then you are at the same peril I am. Version 3 attempted to fix that by claiming a reciprocal license to any patent must be necessary as a component of use.